City decision won’t help DREAMers

The City Council made a recent decision to recognize Las Cruces as a welcoming city is to make illegals feel safe. As it relates to DREAMers, this decision is like placing a Band Aid on a chronic injury. This injury won’t go away without fixing the problem. The problem is that children, through no fault or knowledge of their own, have been brought or sent to this country illegally. So the children are not guilty of violating U.S. law. But the parents or guardians of the children are guilty. I would expect a parent to do whatever is necessary to ensure their child’s safety. But in any country, breaking the law has consequences.

There are two camps on either side of this issue; one side wants complete amnesty with no accountability, the other wants the law to be upheld.

I suggest a compromise; that the illegals come out of the shadows and the fear that surrounds it by registering for status. By registering, citizenship can be obtained through a process which includes an investigation. If the person is self-sufficient and not a burden on the US in any way, including entitlements and/or criminal conviction the process continues to the penalty stage. The penalty should not be overly burdensome, but be a token amount, and paid to the US Treasury. The government could write loans with modest interest rates when necessary.

By all statistics, the US accepts more immigrants than most, if not all, other countries, to the tune of about 1 million per year. So I would say that we are a welcoming country, but we are also a country of laws.

This compromise, or something similar, could satisfy both sides. Any other ideas?

Dave Gallus

Las Cruces

Hatred of Trump is not healthy

“Donald Trump and his zombie followers in the reckless endangerment of all people and the earth we inhabit.”

That was the opening salvo of Connie J. Potter’s description of President Trump. It continued in that vein, including the diagnosis of “a severe psychiatric disorder.” As evidence she offers the following:

Wow. Such latent hostility and hatred. I would suggest that Ms. Potter is blind to the fact that the previous administration could be largely described as above. Indeed, too much of politics is manipulative, unlawful (again as demonstrated by the pen and phone emperor), bullying and threatening.

From her diagnosis, one must assume Ms. Potter to be a psychiatrist. However, the tone of her venomous diatribe bodes ill for her. Too much obvious hatred is more injurious to the vessel than the object of her scorn. Nor is hatred of another human a Christian principle.